High Court Acquits Woman Convicted for Husband’s Murder, Cites Unreliable Extrajudicial Confession and Flawed Recovery

A bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani heard the conviction appeal arising from Sessions Case No. 43 of 2010, in which the sole accused, a wife convicted under Section 302 IPC for the death of her husband, challenged the trial court’s judgment dated 11.01.2012. The appeal raised question on the voluntariness and evidentiary value of an alleged extrajudicial confession, the proof of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and adequacy of motive and corroboration.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution’s case rested primarily on a purported extrajudicial confession made before the village sarpanch and on a subsequent recovery of a nylon ligature said to have been pointed out by the accused while in custody; both threads of evidence failed legal scrutiny. The Court observed that "An extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence" and emphasised that such confessions require careful application of "rules of caution" and, where relied upon, appropriate corroboration. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our opinion, we have serious doubt about the genuineness and truthfulness of the prosecution case regarding evidence of extra judicial confession. At the first point of time, before the neighbours, the appellant did not have disclosed anything, nor she was asked to disclose the true facts of the incident and when the Village Sarpanch arrived at the home, she made a confession before him. This shows that, under the influence and pressure of PW.4, she made an extra judicial confession. If Village Sarpanch would not have arrived at the place of incident, then she might not have confessed her guilt by making extra judicial confession. Thus, the surrounding circumstances and the manner in which the alleged confession being made before the PW.4, the reasonable inference would arise that, the appellant was under pressure and made a statement under the influence of PW.4 and if that is so, then, the extra judicial confession cannot be said to be voluntary, free and truthful and therefore, when the extra judicial confession is not supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and corroborated by other prosecution evidence, the conviction for the offence of murder cannot be made on the evidence of extra judicial confession. In nutshell, our conclusion is that, the evidence of extra judicial confession made before PW.4 does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon."

Background: The prosecution’s case was that the husband and wife, married for about 20 years and living in Village Doswada (Tapi), frequently quarrelled; on the intervening night of 23–24 May 2010 the husband was found dead on an outdoor cot with ligature marks and abdominal injuries. Neighbours and the village sarpanch (PW.4) reached the scene; the sarpanch and several villagers later deposed that the accused admitted she had strangled her husband with a nylon string and inflicted stab injuries. An FIR was filed by the deceased’s brother and, after investigation that included post-mortem, seizure, and forensic reports, the trial court convicted the accused relying largely on the alleged extrajudicial confession and a discovery panchnama recording recovery of a nylon ligature.

On appeal the defence challenged voluntariness of the confession, the credibility of villagers as witnesses influenced by the sarpanch, and the legal sufficiency of the discovery under Section 27 Evidence Act. The State relied on the sarpanch’s and other villagers’ testimony, medical evidence that death resulted from ligature strangulation, and the recovery record. The High Court analysed precedent law on extrajudicial confessions and discovery panchnamas (citing Pawankumar Chaurasia, Prabhatbhai A. Dabhi and Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti), and held that the circumstances of the confession pointed to pressure and influence, the Section 27 discovery was not proved in the statutory manner, and the alleged motive (suspicion of extra-marital affair) was not established by cogent evidence. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2012, acquitted the appellant, cancelled bail bonds, discharged surety, and directed refund of any fine deposited.

Case Details: Case No.: R/CR.A/1922/2012 Case Title: BHARTIBEN W/O GUNESHBHAI PREMJIBHAI GAMIT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): HCLS COMMITTEE (4998); Mr. Vinod M. Gamara (AOR 5910) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhargav Pandya, APP